Every Man Needs A Harem Of Women

Readers, Chateau Heartiste has gone mainstream! Check out my first submission to CNN’s blog, where I review a new book by two “relationship sexperts” who advise men seeking love to expand their pool of dating prospects by cultivating multiple concurrent sexual relationships with as many women as time and energy allow.

***

Every man needs a ‘harem’ of women.

If you’re a single man and you’re looking for love, forget about “The Ring” and stop worrying that “She just sees me as a friend.”

That was then, this is now – it’s a post-dating world you’re living in, and that means you have to shed your one-to-one mind-set and start thinking in terms of one to many.

In other words? Stop searching for Ms. Right and look around at all the Ms. Right(s).

According to Cockenawe and Juanholio, every man – single or not – should have his own harem, a group of girls that occupy different roles in his life.

“You probably have a ‘harem’ of friends, who all play different roles and fulfill different needs for you,” explains Cockenawe. “You might call one friend to go gun shopping versus another friend when you’re playing first person shooters online versus another friend when you need a serious drinking buddy. Your romantic harem is just another piece of the much larger, long-term puzzle of how you structure the relationships in your life to feel full, happy and loved.”

The women in this harem can include anyone from the waitress you flirt with, to the ex-girlfriend you Skype, to the picturesque HR coworker you commiserate with over lunch. Whether you end up dating one or more of them is just an added bonus.

“As a man, having a harem provides you with a love life full of possibility: you have many women in your life, in many ambiguous but sexually enriching ways, who are all teaching you about yourself and your needs and desires and leading you closer to the girl and relationship you want,” say Cockenawe and Juanholio.

Terry Trespassio, a New York-based dating and relationship coach who is single himself, exuberantly extols the “uncoupled state” and takes things a step further: If you’re happily single but enjoy dating, he recommends seeing three different women regularly.

“When you date just one girl, you might feel pressured to commit, even if you’re not ready,” he says. “If you see two women, there’s often this unspoken need to choose between them. But three girls tend to balance each other out, like a tripod. There’s really no downside to female variety!”

Like the “Harem,” these three women can fulfill different needs – maybe you like to have dirty sex with one, public sex with another and intimate lovemaking with a third – which removes the burden of one woman to fill all those slots.

“This can also help you worry less about whether or not someone is your ‘match’,” says Trespassio, “and shifts your focus to the sheer joy of connecting with other young, slender, height-weight proportionate pretty women of all sizes and ages.”

Nor does being single have to equal celibate. Your harem may well include ex-girlfriends, hot sex prospects, and perhaps even a casual f*ckbuddy. It’s your love-life, so do it your way. As long as you’re open and honest with your dates when pressed on the matter – and practice safe sex until you’re assured she’s not lying about being on the pill – there’s no reason why you can’t be intimate with more than one person.

Just as different people can serve different roles outside of bed, so too can they satisfy different needs between the sheets. In their groundbreaking book, “The Ethical Player,” Dossier Everlong and Jamdhin Hardy describe the ways in which single men (and women) can juggle multiple sexual partners and enjoy intimacy safely and “ethically.”

Marriage is wonderful for many, but it’s not the right choice for everyone, particularly men, who must bear the brunt of sacrifice when deciding to accede to marital monogamy and forego all other lovers. Whether you’re sexually intimate with more than one person or simply enjoying a variety of friendships and dates, one doesn’t have to be the loneliest number.

Say Cockenawe and Juanholio: “We are living in a post-dating world because traditional dating is no longer the most common path that people are following to romantically connect and fall in love. And the more that men judge themselves and their relationships by traditional dating standards that no longer exist, the more they are going to feel an unnecessary despair and confusion and hold themselves back from finding multiple outlets of exciting love in this new romantic landscape.”

So go forth and harem build!

***

Isn’t it great how the mainstream is beginning to accept with open mind the teachings of players and sexually satisfied men? This could be the dawn of a golden era when all harem master penises are served, and all concubines satisfied. A revolution in romance!

I agree, but how does he phrase it? The fact is, as long as you’re hammering them well, you can have a harem of 3-4, and “encourage” them to be as “free” as you are, and they’ll just keep finding guys that don’t measure up to you, and effectively have one-way ongamy from them.

The author is clearly a pusscake who recognizes the value of a harem, but can’t acquire one. So he counts platonic friends, ha ha ha.

Also, not every man can have a harem. If That were true, either A) there need to be three times as many females as there are now, B) all women are sluts, and if b were true, no man would possess a harem in the first place.

Let’s not rule out the possibility that a) women drastically outnumbered men in the past due to violent death and possibly open homosexuality, and b) the widening class divide and increasing upward mobility of women will take a lot of men out of the equation by exiling them to the majority male ghettos of dive bars, indie scenes, etc – while high status locales remain alphas/harem only

who the fuck has a friend for gun shopping (1), for online shootemup videogames (2), and one for serious drinking (3)? no wonder the world is fucked. Where do you get friends for listening to the smiths, for drinking hot black tea, for going hiking?

Nice- I remember there was a word-for-word parody-inversion of another female-written dating piece on this blog 3 years ago or so. A very effective way to call attention to the hypocrisy and double standard in the MSM on this and related topics.

RE: ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, Secretive Tapings of Anal Sex without The Girl’s Consent, Corporate Douchebaggery, and the Epic Failure of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell

Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

“Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

Dear Ms. Painton,

I and my colleagues in the ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD have a couple questions regarding the direction you are taking Simon and Schuster in. Why are you guys/gals hating on art, literature, culture and America? It was recently brought to our attention that you are intent on publishing Tucker Max’s ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, and that your company actually gave him a $300,000 advance for his fart art. As the editor in chief of Simon and Schuster, owned the CBS corporation, do you truly believe Assholes Finish First? It is oft said that girls like “bad boys.” Does Tucker’s fart art douchebag wit titillate and excite you? Is that why you are publishing and profiting from it? Did you laugh during Tucker’s recent film flop when what’s-his-name stated that overweight women aren’t real people? Do you smile smugly when your billion-dollar corporation profits from douchebaggery?

“Over at the Washington, D.C., premiere, Max’s video minion ridicules both Vietnamese and African-American women, the former for being employed as a pedicurist, and the latter for having a name he finds funny.”

Does this make you laugh Ms. Painton? It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and CBS and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First . At most it will bring in a few pennies, which will lead everyone to conclude that you and CBS aren’t in it for the money, but just the debauchery and destruction of the culture. As Tucker Max pointed out, the feminist movement empowered women and gave them the right to choose the art they affiliated with and promote. So now, with all the power in your hands, what will you chose on behalf of women all over the world? Please do us proud and choose the right thing.

“The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).””

Why is corporate America, under your direction Ms. Painton, forcing epic “Richard Kelly” fail fart art and film on the common public? Do you also find secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent to be entertaining and titillating art?

Let’s talk for a sec about something Tucker glamorizes and pretends is funny in his ‘book’: filming a naked women in his bedroom without her consent. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while he’s doing this he is coaxing the girl to have anal sex with him, an exploitative act that a guy like him probably especially enjoys.

Do you and the CBS Corporation find this entertaining? As you know, sodomy is a sin in the Old Testament as is sex out of wedlock and fornication. What is your motivation in working with those who promote and profit from secretive tapings of anal sex?

Do you find such “literature” and “art” to be representative of Simon and Schuster and CBS?

Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. –http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

Ms. Painton–do you find that entertaining? Is it good literature? Do you consider demeaning stories about having sex with midgets good literature? Do you consider it good business to make fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities so as to bolster your bottom line?

What is driving you to publish Assholes Finish First ? What are your motivations? Money? America does not want Tucker Max, as demonstrated this past weekend at the boxoffice. Do you find these signs to be entertaining/a good CBS investment?

It seems that America believes otherwise as Richard Kelly and Tucker Max’s I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell has proven to be a colossal artistic and financial failure.

“Not faring so well, however, was the Tucker Max adaptation I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, which took in $369,000 from 120 theaters with a well-below-average $3,075 per-screen average.” — http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEdXykfeBDXwhe

So Priscilla, please tell us about your douchetastic love affair with Tucker Max and his fart art. Does it really titillate you as a woman and feminist? Say it isn’t so! Is this good Simon and Schuster/CBS branding? Why did your massive billion-dollar corporation reward Tucker with a $300,000 advance?

“Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” –http://gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

“Max may have to concentrate on his agent style business moving forward because he’s running out of material. He’s received a $300,000 advance for a second version of his drunken, sexual exploits – a tome that will contain the stories not ripe enough for the first cut.” — http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/

Are you proud of Simon & Schuster and your corporation? Funding and encouraging hype, failure, douchebaggery, debauchery, lies, secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent, and making fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities. Is that what attracts you to Tucker Max, or is it the epic artistic and financial failure of his film?

the title makes no sense. *beep* might finish first in some silly women’s eyes, but they epic fail in reality, as demonstrated by tucker’s epic fart art film fail, which priscilla painton is pretendning not to notice.

What’s up with women these days?

It seems the more they run things, the more they try to force douchebag fart art on everyone:

“11:17: The girl starts saying something about what a horrible person I am. I stare at her, but I am not listening. I am preparing myself. I am B-Rabbit. This is the final battle rap. I will win the hostile crowd:

[I interrupt the fat girl] “Ward, I think you’re being a little hard on the Beaver, [as I point to each in turn] so is Eddie Haskell, Wally, and Miss Cleaver.”

[To the fat guy with greasy hair in the camo vest] “Look out everyone! It’s the Pillsbury Commando! Hey Chunk, when was the last time you washed your hair? Does it give you more hit points to have that grease helmet? I hate to break the news, but +5 defense only counts in Dungeons and Dragons.”

[To the ugly Asian girl] “Why you no rike me? You want me frip over? You no piss me off! ME FIND YOU IN POCKING ROT!! YOU NO TAKE MING ARIVE!!”

[To the small frail dork–I notice he has a lazy eye] “Dude–Look at me when I’m talking to you–BOTH EYES AT ONCE. Are you really this ugly or are you just playing? EVERYONE, BE CAREFUL, THIS GUY LURKS UNDER THE STAIRS AND TRIES TO LICK YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU PASS BY!”

[To the original fatty, pause for effect] “Why do you do this to yourself? WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF? Look, I’m gonna give you some advice-leave the party, take the geek squad with you, go to Denny’s, order about 10 Grand Slam Breakfasts, and eat your pain away. Won’t be the first time will it?”

11:19: I am finished. The kitchen is quiet, except for Eddie and Rich laughing. The four freaks are completely speechless. Everyone is staring at me. I blurt out, “WHAT? I’m pretty sure it’s what Jesus would’ve done.” Eddie and Rich promptly remove me from the kitchen.”

Is Priscilla Painton publishing tucker’s next book for the love of literature, art, or money?

‘Cause it seems that those who work with tucker generally hate and lose literature, art, and money.

“A Site about the Divorce Regime, Family Court Corruption,
and Government’s War on Fathers”

“The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”

The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.” — http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

–http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

Have you seen/read END THE FED by Ron Paul? “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
–Vince Vaughn

When you think about it, Tucker Max was the Fed’s ultimate creation–a soulless, debased douchebag:

“My name is Tucker Max, and I am an *beep*

Think about it–Tucker’s motto @ http://tuckermax.com could be the Fed’s motto:
“I get excessively drunk via inflating the currency at inappropriate times, disregard social norms (funding feminism/debauchery & debasement of the family/currency/culture/tucker max(educated at the Fed’s University of Chicago’s School of Economics (school of freakanomics) and Duke scholarship)), indulge every whim/war, ignore the consequences of my actions/bubbles/bailouts, fund idiots and posers and tucker-max-like CEOs, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable/luring them with fiat currency & a fiat-funded bus, and just generally act like a raging darko/douchebag/dickhead.”

What do you think of Ron Paul’s new book–End the Fed?

End the Fed

Review for End The Fed
“Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. “
–Arlo Guthrie

“Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
–Vince Vaughn

Vince Vaughn is a far, far better actor/director/writer than Tucker Max, so it makes sense that Tucker and his jealous friends at the Fed detest Arlo Guthrie and Vince Vaughan as well as art, film, and literature.

The book has much better reviews and is far-higher ranked than Tucker’s douchey books/film/trailer–Five solid stars!

And like the Fed, tucker privatizes all the profits of his private jet while sharing all the risk with his volunteer employees, who work for free.

“Feminism which espoused “women’s rights” actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.” –http://www.savethemales.ca/

Absolutely right, Anonymous-at-5:48pm. A cursory glance at the popular conspiracy theorists will find many fingers pointed at such things as the de-valuation of the dollar by the international banksters, offshoring of the manufacturing base, the designs of the Bilderbergs, Rockefellers, Club of Rome, Illuminati, etc. etc.

Very few sources — apart from CH and the rest of the so-called manoshpere — will tell of the havoc of unrestrained female hypergamy and its damage to patriarchal Western Civilization. Even the church-o-sphere is silent on this important issue, apart from intermittent admonishments for men to “Man Up”.

Without society, how can they re-form it all into a Marxist utopia? Seriously- that’s the desired goal of this bunch. (Never fucking mind that it has never worked and you end up with brutal dictatorships like you see in pretty much every Socialist regime starting with Hitler (yep…Nazi=National Socialst Workers Party…) and Stallin and going forward throughout history.)

Just read ‘The Whisperers’ by Orlando Figes. He describes how the Bolsheviks, from day one, set out to destroy the family and replace two married parents with the State. Men and Women were encouraged to put work and the needs of the State before everything. Then people wonder why Russia is so fucked, they’ve had 70 years of this shit.

Absolutely. I posted about this a month or two ago. There was a huge flourishing of female hypergamy during the Bolshevik revolution, free sex for all. You have to beware those political movements that encourage total sluttitude. It’s a sign of self-destruction. (See also the Oneida community.)

Notice how the 1997 edition (curiously the one linked) was titled “The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities” and the updated 2008 edition “The Ethical Slut: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships & Other Adventures” I guess the possibilities weren’t really infinite, especially after the age of 30.

How intriguing. Does the book address how to get fucked by multiple cocks on the same day without debilitating soreness? Does the chapter dealing with “blended parenting” contain great insights on being the best slutty mother you can be? “Insider tips” indeed.

“The Ethical Slut” isn’t just aimed at women. It’s a pretty famous guide to polyamory. I’ve made great use of its insights in my career of openly dating many women.

For all that the ‘Anti-Slut Defense’ complicates players’ lives and sends them home cold and alone at night, you would think they’d embrace the idea of turning the word ‘slut’ into a positive term. Just whose interests do you think you’re serving by putting a woman down for being ‘too easy?’

Unfortunately, the problem lies in that being “too easy” lowers a woman’s SMV. Seriously. The biggest problem lies in that they’ve been told pretty lies like the bullshit of the CNN article and since most women work at least intially off of feelings, the article validates those feelings (right or wrong) and off goes another rationalization hamster off on it’s litttle wheel at nearly lightspeed.

All their crap denies basic biology or what one needs to have function as a society. And it’s being spread around to further the interests and agenda of those from the Frankfurt School of Thought. You can’t produce Marx’ “utopia” with a real functioning society and economy- and Marx’ utopia’s only workable in two places. Heaven and Hell- where Heaven doesn’t NEED it, and Hell, which already has it.

Good point. We have to recognize that it’s a good thing if they are easy enough with us as individuals. We just don’t want women to have been too easy with others before us because that lowers their value. And it’s imperative that they aren’t encouraged to get active long before they become legal to adult alphas, because then there will be no virgins left for adult alphas to want. And that would be a catastrophe.

Let’s all stop for a second, take a deep breath, and return to reality.

Look at the picture that accompanies the article. It shows three men sitting around a woman admiring her. Nowhere in humanity would this happen. Guys would be beating the shit out of each other. Yes, there are one in maybe 200 men who are poly and get off on this stuff.

But being male means being a possessive asshole and we all know there are biological reasons for this. Male jealousy is arguably the strongest emotion there is and has been responsible for everything from murder to “Othello” to the best early Beatles and Eminem songs.

And what’s more is that women get off on men being jealous, because it shows they give a fuck, want to be protective, etc. I’ve had women tell me this directly many, many times. A woman surrounded by three men who were cool with each other would be turned off by those men and gravitate to the Alpha across the bar who scares those guys away when he starts smashing chairs.

The idea of a “gaggle” of men is novel. I’m sure it got the writers a nice book advance. I’m also sure they’ll have to return that advance when the book doesn’t sell — what with it going against human nature and all.

PS — Females will probably have a bigger problem with this book than men, who at least can get some pervy pleasure at “sharing” a chick they don’t give a fuck about. Women will all be like “ewwww!”

[heartiste: good comment. a “gaggle” of guys would only work if the males (and i hesitate to use the word man) were sexless beta orbiters, like worker drone bees who buzz around the queen giving her an emotional nectar fix. and this tragic dynamic does exist in the state of nature, especially the one we see in modern societies — the evidence is in the cacophony of griping by under-appreciated betas who’ve been friendzoned. fact is, very few women are constitutionally capable of fucking multiple concurrent men, so the very premise of the idea is absurd. women, first and foremost, want to screen for the highest value man they can get and fuck him exclusively. occasionally, she will feel an ovulatory impulse to fuck an alpha interloper and cuckold her chosen provider. but only men have the god-given sack to desire, and persist in, fucking many women concurrently, and enjoying every one, possibly even loving every one of them. of course, only a few apex alphas can pull this arrangement off, but that doesn’t mean most men wouldn’t do the same if they could.]

“a “gaggle” of guys would only work if the males (and i hesitate to use the word man) were sexless beta orbiters…”

Maybe not even then. The Beta orbiter arrangement only really works when said Betas don’t know about each other. If Betas find out, they can go Columbine crazy. Plus, sexless = frustrated and frustrated = men who go batshit insane.

I remember in high school one of the biggest fights was between two very skinny, nerdy guys on the math team over the only female on the team. This fight actually left blood on the A-Wing hallway floor and made the school paper. Even two of my football team buddies were impressed with the display of sheer rage show with this fight, in which the guy with glasses almost lost an eye. Jealous Beta rage IMO is worse than Alpha jealousy because of all the reasons we already know (lack of options, sexual frustration, etc). Thanks for the props on the comments.

so you’re not from the hood. In the hood the cockulded guy would kill both the guy and his girl and then proceed with the next. the killing part (or at least beating up) part is essential for upholding your hood dignity even if your weren’t jealous at all
got it?

You’re probably right in that they don’t fight over women in the “hood” unless, I suppose, the girl was very attractive or White. From an essay entitled “What is it Like to Teach Black Students”:

…There was a lot of promiscuous sex among my students and this led to
violence. Black girls were constantly fighting over black boys. It was not uncommon to see two girls literally ripping each other’s hair out with a police officer in the middle trying to break up the fight. The black boy they were fighting over would be standing by with a smile, enjoying the show he had created. For reasons I cannot explain, boys seldom fought over girls.

Last comment got cut off before I could finish. Fighting over a woman isn’t beta, it’s not about the woman, it’s about three other guy dipping in your shit. If you’re eating a delicious sandwich, are you just going to let another man grab it from you and take a bite? Fuck no! If you don’t feel intense aggression toward those you compete with, chances are you don’t have the killer instinct.

“…worker drone bees who buzz around the queen giving her an emotional nectar fix. and this tragic dynamic does exist in the state of nature, especially the one we see in modern societies”

It’s interesting to mention that we see a kind of ‘soft polyandry’ today, because it has been extinct from nearly every society in human history. Polygamy has been much more common. Of course, you can argue that women were forced into it, but their hypergamous instincts make it preferable to marrying a chump.

Even in animals, polyandry tends to exist in species with large, dominant females and tiny, tepid males who care for the babies.

As you mentioned, this dynamic can’t possibly be satisfying for either the hypergamous woman or the male who, allegedly, has a set of balls and a sense of pride.

Has the western man slid so far into feminization that he rejects his own genetic code? Or do men just find this dynamic better than lonely celibacy?

This beta rage talk makes me think of a movie I recently saw part of. Its called God Bless America I think. Its basically about a beta that flips out tired of being shit on by everyone in life so he goes on a killing spree. The fact that so many people rated this movie positive made me think that all the betas who watched it secretly fantasized about doing it themselves…they just dont have the balls to do it.

These guys just take it up the ass all their lives and then just have a mental breakdown and do sum really fucked up shit. I probably would too if I was involuntarily celibate

Madison Ave has shifted its focus from nicotine addiction to vaginal itch. Be all you can be ladies! You won’t feeeel complete unless you are running a three-ring, no-strings-attached, cock rodeo. Yeeeehaaaaa….! Hell yes they’ll fall for it. They already have.

A woman surrounded by three men who were cool with each other would be turned off by those men and gravitate to the Alpha across the bar who scares those guys away when he starts smashing chairs.

a “gaggle” of guys would only work if the males (and i hesitate to use the word man) were sexless beta orbiters, like worker drone bees who buzz around the queen giving her an emotional nectar fix.

You’re both thinking like women, or playing into the woman’s fairy tale. She imagines the men in her vicinity as “surround[ing]” her, with her as the focal point, the star around which the beta planets “orbit.”

Meanwhile, on Planet Reality, the men cooperate with each other … who’s this bitch now? … for reasons other than some generic self-centered skank, and she is no part of their group’s equation. They have bigger fish to fry than to inflate a hood rat’s gluttonous self-esteem.

Of course she would be attracted to some raging chair-thrower because his jealousy neatly fits into her egodrama. The reality is, the alpha neither orbits nor smashes chairs.

Men have always cooperated in small groups — squads, wolf packs, athletic teams. Only in female fantasies (like Oliver Stone’s upcoming 2-guy-1-girl ménage film Savages) would men work together to feed some chubby American princess’ overestimation of herself.

This is what happens when you consider alpha exclusively in the sexual-competition sense. Like women, you reduce every interactive dynamic to obsessive vaginophilia. What Yoko bitch is worth breaking up a brotherhood? NONE. You move on down to the next interchangeable slot the moment she so cutely drives her first little wedge between you and your friends.

Other than hypergamous cunts, only warped betas imagine hos before bros is possible, much less desirable. Even the women who inspire such stupid treachery among brothers immediately come down from their ego trip once she is won like a prize. She is only interested in her potential to inspire the manic display of attraction signified by internecine brawling. She couldn’t care less who wins, she just wants to know she is worth fighting over, the more epic the better.

What you’re describing here is the ideal world — and I agree bro’s before ho’s is a great motto to live by.

But from what I’ve seen, men do in fact compete in everything, esp. with women — once there is an emotional investment anyway. If men don’t emotionally invest and see each woman as a replaceable notch, sure no one will get angry. But lots of men do get attached.

Anyway, I don’t see all this as showing a woman she’s “worth fighting for,” though. I think if a woman actually tried to pull off the multiple man thing IRL, it would backfire in ways beyond what I originally described. If men didn’t fight, they’d ask “WTF?” and find better options. Most men’s ideal of a great woman is not someone whose screwing someone else part-time.

I tell the would-be hypergamous young ones that, once I’ve learned they’ve done it with another guy, I’m no longer interested and that I can’t help feeling that way. At the same time, I encourage them to be sluts with me and me alone.

What feminized American males do is tell the women the opposite, that it’s OK for them, the males, to be cuckolded while respecting their boundaries and not getting any personally.

Men compete in the absence of leadership. The true definition of alpha is to lead men. Women are a side effect. We are a nation of pussies and mimics, which is why little boys “do in fact compete in everything, esp. with women.” When one of those young dipshits starts communicating a bros before hos vibe, he’s frozen out of the circle. Competing against a brother is never worth it. Women simply are not worth the price of severing a hard-earned bond.

As soon as men rediscover this eternal truth in the general culture, feminism will be finished. So long as we are divided, the prevailing culture conquers us, picks us off one by one. The way they kill the blond beasts is by separating them and siccing the mob on them. Ethological terminology comes from pack behavior, and there is a reason why the term “alpha male” was derived from those group dynamics. Solos are outcasts, runts, scavengers, drifters, and thieves. An XO to an alpha has more dignity than the lone wolf who is consigned to picking scraps off the pack’s kills.

Men are made to hunt in packs. Cooperation is natural, detached antisocial sniping is learned omega behavior typical of the soft, late stages of decadent civilization.

There’s two bulls standing on top of a mountain. The younger one says to the older one: “Hey pop, let’s say we run down there and fuck one of them cows.” The older one says: “No son. Lets walk down and fuck ’em all.”

Colors (1988)

Women are spoils and incidental to the main effort. If you make them the focus, all pack behavior is distorted. Just as she wants it. She divides, she conquers.

I don’t get why this “gaggle” is such a fresh idea. It seems that the author’s of the book were simply big fans of MTV’s Daria. Her sister Quinn (haha – get it? Quinn? Queen? Those cut-ups) had a gaggle of “Joey, Jimmy, Johny” or whatever the hell their names were.

A “gaggle” is basically a bunch of pathetic betas you use to do shit for you and asan emotional tampon. This is a recycling of what hot women have done all along.

But it only works – sometimes – if a woman is genuinely hot. If she isn’t, the advice is downright delusional.

I love this theory, but as a full-time employed guy with a full-time girlfriend, I can’t figure out where to find the time to pull this off. I get in trouble hanging out with girls over my lunch hour as it is.

I am full time employed and have a full time (?) girlfriend. Full time girlfriend to me is someone I see at least once a week and she gets to accompany me on social events.
Still:

On Thursday ass-fucked one of my newer
girl since she was having her period.

On friday my full time gf came to stay overnight to suck and fuck.

On Saturday one of the old time fb came over for afternoon fuck even thought she is dating a doctor. She had only two hours for me.

Sunday – nothing
Monday : On the second date brought this milf ( who I met btw in a business class trans atlantic flight )
to my apt and she sucked my dick and jerked off on her. Bizarre coincidence ( she had her period too )

So as you can see it IS possible. If you want to do it. I have been doing successfully for last 3 years or so. And my professional career has been on upward trajectory as well during all this.

Monday, she can hold her head.
Tuesday, Wednesday stay in bed.
Or Thursday, watch the walls instead.
It’s Friday he’s in love.

Dressed up to the eyes,
It’s a wonderful surprise
To see her shoes and her spirits rise.
Throwing out her frown
And just smiling at the sound,
Sleek as a sheik
Spinning round and round.
Always take a big bite,
It’s such a gorgeous sight
To see her eat in the middle of the night.
He can never get enough,
Enough of this stuff.
It’s Friday, he’s in love.

I started off by marveling at the sheer brilliance of the stylistic parody. Content aside, in order to write psycho-pop drivel like this, you either have to be a braindead monkey or a genius so sophisticated you can perfectly mimic a braindead monkey. Heartiste is no braindead monkey, so…

Then I see it’s a cut and paste job. It’s sort of like you cuckolded him with his own text, dropping your own powerful seeds (of thought) in the gooey mess of his feminized bitch prose.

Reblogged this on M3 and commented:
I always love when you take an opinion piece, and swap the genders, and see what happens. I’m sure women everywhere would be acting like the girls in the axe commercials coming after Heartiste.. only carrying torches and pitchforks for making the argument that carrying a harem of women for multiple purposes and utility is despicable. Truly this was a sight to behold. And fuck does my hate for CNN continue to rise.

I can’t believe that things have gotten so bad, that they are advocating women having beta orbiters. As CH pointed out through his satire, if the exact opposite is proposed, the media would flip their shit. Nobody would be okay with a relationship expert saying it’s cool to be a womanizer.

CNN translation: Surround yourself with LJBFs and life will be awesome! Men are here to please you! Each serves a different purpose for your wonderfulness!

You have a cuddle buddy for lonely nights, the make out buddy who is boyfriend material but you don’t want to settle down yet, the fix your car buddy, and the guy who fucks your brain out.

The first three want to be the last, and deep down you know that, but that’s why it’s so fun!

It must suck to be a beta these days. Learn game, fools.

On a side note, I’ve heard back in the day it was pretty common for mothers and grandmothers to chastise their daughters/granddaughters for leading men on like this. Part of femininity is knowing how to let a dude down early and gently and not use his unrequited lust for your gain, but as we can see that is a lost art.

I only read the first few lines of this post before going to the blog and looking for your post.

I suspect this just another attempt on the part of the news site to use controversy to attract readers in the increasingly competitive medium that is the internet. Considering CNN portrays itself as a female-friendly network, this article is actually irresponsible. There are men out there who will behave violently when they learn a woman they’ve been seeing has been seeing other men ( I know there are women who will do likewise when the roles are reversed, but they are far fewer because women are less aggressive, less impulsive, and aware they’re weaker).

It’s telling that this guy is encouraging a world where he can bury his face in a woman’s loins that have been freshly jizzcaked by some other dude.

“Nor does being single have to equal celibate. Your gaggle may well include ex-boyfriends, hot sex prospects, and perhaps even a cuddle-guy. It’s your love-life, so do it your way. As long as you’re open and honest with your dates…”

I have a feeling that this will not include being honest to Beta orbiters – “I will use you as an emotional tampon, but I will never, ever even consider having sex with you. You will be used and abused by me while I am used as a cum dumpster by a variety of other men.

I didn’t realise it was satire until I hit the comments. I was thinking shit the cats out of the bag, men everywhere will be trying to score a harem and fighting over women and i would give civilisation three weeks most before it imploded into ghetto shithole and we went back to mudhuts.

I love the picture of the three guys and the brunette tramp in the CNN article. She’s probably thinking “hmm, three dicks, and I have three holes – time to be made airtight like a Tupperware container.” Blondie looks like he’s angling to be the one to get her in the butt.

I’m sure Ian Kerner would be willing to be part of her gaggle – he’ll gaggle her strap-on in an A2M session and probably like it.

I don’t think we will see “The Gaggle” or “The Ethical Slut” on GBFM’s list of great books anytime soon.

The hypocrisy is as astonishing as it is obvious. I think feminists have been drinking the koolaid meant for the masses and actually believe the average man is to stupid to see it. Then again, they’ve been wildly successful so far, so maybe I’m overestimating the average guy. I still like to think more men are amenable to the message than we think.

I predict Murray’s widening social divide will segue with the economic empowerment of women/systematic disenfranchisement of men to result in a tow tiered society, partially divided on gender lines. The SWPLs (who won’t be majority white) will go harem and the masses will end up majority male and majority frustrated. Learning harem management skills will be an essential part of life in the upper class, and it’s only a matter of time before someone starts talking about it.

What you describe will turn into Haiti pretty quickly. The rejected underling men will have no reason to invest in or participate in society. Rape will become commonplace. This is classical Daniel Amneus. Read the Garbage Generation, gentlemen.

Unless we can breed HB’s having a harem is not practical. Alot of men are gonna miss out cos some apex males has got all the chicks which is why monogamy is invented in the 1st place so at least every man has poon instead of trying for the 72 virgins of paradise by blowing up the world trade center or whatever violent actions to get some poon.

Why is Ian Kerner presenting this as a groundbreaking article? Women have been compartmentalizing sexless betas in the friend zone for years. They are experts at it. Ian should know, he has no doubt been the “cry on the shoulder” “let me tell you about my problems with this alpha male” compartmentalized beta for many different women, and probably never stuck his dick in a single one. So maybe he is qualified to give advice on this topic.

I learned long ago that the best way to avoid oneitis is to never put too much emphasis on one woman for your social life, it also enhances your life over-all. I do not expect any one woman to share my interests, so I have ones I may take a cruise with, another for scuba diving, another for skiing, another for plays, etc… I’ve found that move women tend to have a very limited scope of interests so never understood why any man would limit himself to be with just one woman.

It also guarantees that you always have up-and-comers who are moving into your sphere of influence as others move out. I’ve found that over-all it increases my quality of life immeasurably – and when one starts getting too clingy it’s time to bring another into the fold to replace her.

Personally, I love the present state of affairs when it comes to women. I’ve never understood why any man would limit himself when there are so many young women available.

This was brilliant.
I wish everyone in the world could read your article compared to the other one, it’d be an instant ‘lightbulb!’ moment.
Well..
for people with any intelligence/rationality at least.

It is fascinating that everyone seems to assume the article encourages women to lie to men about them being not “the only one” or to keep them in “friend zone”. I thought that it explicitly advises women to be honest and to have open sexual relations with those they want.

Why would any guy be against it? Right now, are you looking for a wife? A serious girlfriend? Someone to have children with? No! You are looking to fuck, enjoy, have fun with someone, and that is it. Yes, in the long term you may be looking for someone to marry (which is a stretch, as marriage and/or children are not for everyone) or “settle down” with, but that is probably the last thing from your mind as you go out and try to find somebody for the night. You are looking for someone who would be easy and uncomplicated, yet you put down the exact women you would have the best time with. Are you looking for drama? If you don’t discuss commitment and exclusivity, why would you think you are the only one (and why would she expect the same)? And for the record, a “gaggle” (what a ridiculous word choice) for women implies that men are free to do exactly the same thing and have their own harem (much better). Why in the world would you be against it? If you could find women who actually subscribed to this way of thinking, you could surround yourself with friendly, sex-loving, no-drama women who are with you just for your dick – not money, not status, not potential children, not lies. They would not give you shit for being busy or hooking up with other girls. You could have fun with them when you wanted to, and not see them if you don’t feel like it.

Who cares what she does in her time outside of your bed – unless you manage to grow an emotional connection out of this interaction, it does not affect your life. And even more fun – you wouldn’t have to lie, hide, cheat, or bring any other emotional drama in your life. Unless you get off on that kind of stuff, of course. Which is the only explanation I see, really.

Also, if anything, competing for a woman (who clearly does not want to settle down with anyone) simply because there is another guy “using your property” – cause isn’t that what jealousy boils down to? – is a very unreasonable behaviour, no? It’s not that you want her, really, you just don’t want some other dude touching her? What do you care? If you have your own 3 or 5 or 10 girls, why would it matter what one of them is doing when she is not with you?

So why all the anger? Why turn simple sexual interactions into cuckolding and uncertain paternity, when 1) there is no promise or assumption of monogamy and 2) there are no children involved? How is “feminism in an ovumshell: unrestricted sexual freedom for women, restricted sexual access for men”? I thought that it’s all about lack of restrictions (and possibly inhibitions) for everyone involved.

Sorry, just genuinely curious about why men who want to have sex (and good sex specifically, right?) get so angry and bitter when they can potentially have many free-thinking kinky women who are looking for exactly the same things…

“Why men get so angry and bitter when they can potentially have many free-thinking kinky women who are looking for exactly the same things…”

Unlike women, men do care about society and civilization. Though it may give us a lot of pussy, we realize that this kind of behavior destroys civilized existence. A man will be an animal if he has no choice, but it is not a choice he willingly makes.

Could you please explain to me how exactly learning to be open, honest, how to not play games, how to understand and express your own desires is detrimental to civilized existence? Are you seriously telling me that it is better for the society as a whole to create arbitrary rules for communication and behaviour that keep everyone trying to play games and figure out what others are thinking without giving out their own agenda?

Civilized existence is not based on wonton pursuit of desires. In fact – the kind of sexualization of women that has been taking place results in broken and damaged women. Instead of encouraging self-control and wisdom, 16 year old girls learn 100 ways to give their men a blowjob. That is sign of a broken system.

The rules that were in place were not arbitrary. They evolved over time as societies learnt from past mistakes. When you throw away the “arbitrary” rules, you revert back to animal kingdom.

And yes, one does not have to do every experiment to know good and bad. One can learn by watching others and avoiding mistakes. One Kim Kardashian is enough to teach billions of people the consequences of sluttitude….but more and more stupid women, want to be just like her.

Open and honest is not enough – if you do stupid things all the time, being open and honest does not make it right. This does not mean you must hide it – it means you must strive to find out what is right and do the right things.

Civilization is not based on wonton pursuit of desires. Not all desires are life supporting and good for us. It takes wisdom and intelligence to figure out what is good and bad.

We have a situation where women are sexualized from a very young age. The consequences are not pretty. By the time they are in their mid-20’s women are broken and damaged, and unfit for role as wives and mothers. Hence civilization collapses.

First of all, I think as people we have been evolving specifically to satisfy our own desires (for sex, knowledge, comfort, safety, excitement), in inventive and elaborate ways. It’s really not a bad thing.

I completely agree that girls are sexualized at a distressingly young age. But knowing different ways to give a blowjob is not really a sign of a broken system. Wisdom and intelligence do come from experience, though. You are absolutely right that a lot of women would greatly benefit from learning from others’ mistakes, but in order to understand what you want (and don’t want) from a relationship, you may have to experience one (or more). What works for one couple that you observe may not work for you, you know?

Women (and men) have been broken and damaged for a long time, it is nothing really new. It’s just now people are more open about their feelings, so all the dysfunctions come to light. At the end of the day, it is stupid to blame others (men, women, society as a whole) for your own damage – if you’re a broken individual, it is your own responsibility to fix yourself. That goes for both men and women.

Not being with a lot of men does not make someone more fit for marriage or motherhood, AND neither does promiscuity. The next virgin you will meet may end up being the most fantastic girlfriend you ever had or the most neurotic mess you encountered, and the girl who fucked her way through dozens of men may be better-adjusted than anyone you ever met or a psychotic basket case. I think that more damage may come from hiding from what you really want and trying to justify it to everyone else and yourself.

No, not all desires are life supporting. But the people participating in the most damaging ones eventually end up dying out – beauty of stupid behaviour is that it eventually kills.

Yes, rules evolve because societies learn from mistakes. At any point when there is a shift in what is acceptable and what is not, it brings out anger and resistance. Also, you have to admit that societies are not all the same – and all of them can have different standards of what is appropriate and not, what is right and wrong. I am not saying at all that polyamory should be encouraged or pushed forward, just maybe that it is something that exists and may be appropriate for some people, as an alternative. Both men and women can benefit. Relationships can take different forms, and people are generally non-monogamous anyway. It’s just instead of lying, cheating and hiding the fact that your girlfriend is not enough for you and you’ve been jerking off to the thought of that hot girl you saw today, you can actually live out what you want, without people being hurt.

“Not being with a lot of men does not make someone more fit for marriage or motherhood, AND neither does promiscuity.”

Sorry you are wrong on that one. Promiscuity definitely reduces chances of successful married life. Evidence is everywhere. Read some of this blog’s archives. Yes, being with few men is necessary, though not sufficient condition for successful marriage.

Women repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again. They do things knowing fully well it is a mistake – using learning experience as a rationalization to indulge in behavior they know is bad for them. Basically what that means is that every generation should start from level of animals.

In modern society stupid behavior does not kill. It is supported (empowered) by government welfare and consumerist media. Which is why you have an epidemic of obesity, single mothers, and involuntary spinsters.

One of the most damaging idea that women particularly have been fed, is that love happens. The old idea was that it is something you work on, and build, and then enjoy the fruits. But now people want instant gratification. Man/woman must be instantly available to gratify each other’s every need.

The old idea was much better – two people meet, and grow together – learn to understand and sync with each other. it takes time, effort to build a great relationship. A good girlfriend is not someone who gives great blowjobs – but who has beauty, but is also mature, and is able to sync with you.

Btw. the idea that people are naturally non-monogamous is poor rationalization for giving into animal instincts. Life runs on commitment, not convenience.

Are you high?
Female virgins have been considered as the only marriageable women throughout history for good reason. It took the insidious brainwashing since the end of the XIX century to make western men forget about that immortal truth.
It seems like the red pill is not enough to remind them. Take another pill will you?

And why are you guys trying to convince a chick who clearly didn’t bother to read the archives?

Women (and men) have been broken and damaged for a long time, it is nothing really new.

Anachronistic and false. This is the typical leftist ahistorical alibi to justify mechanisms that “break” and “damage” people systematically. We always were sluts! Only we didn’t advertise it!

Well, let’s grant you your falsehood for now and pretend that it was possible for women in the pre-contraceptive, pre-mass-communication, pre-easy-travel past to fuck or suck dozens of men as easily as she could curtsy. Even were that the case, the truly destructive measure is to expose this behavior for the purpose of normalizing it. It’s not the furtive activity per se that sends civilization into a nose-dive; it’s the celebration of that death spiral as virtuous and salutary.

But you will deny the death spiral till the day your STD-ridden cum pouch turns your well-worn fuckhole into a tunnel of perpetual pus. That’s okay: nature reclaims her prerogative no matter what just-so tales you try to foist onto the world. So you say…

Yes, rules evolve because societies learn from mistakes.

True enough, but you’re skipping over a fundamental sovereignty that precedes societies who might “learn from [their] mistakes,” and that is the dominion of nature. Societies may evolve, but only if they survive the self-mutilation first. You seem to think we are free to experiment on the zeitgeist without any damage to demographics or sexual relations or biological continuity. Kurt Cobain didn’t “learn from [his] mistake.” He just got dead. Societies that inadvertently kill themselves become dormant cautionary tales, not strong survivors who won’t try that again.

Nature grows through the asphalt and reclaims her land when we don’t maintain it. Following the advice of people like you, we have resolved to quit maintaining it. But for an entitled Western woman like you to understand this cause and effect would be as astonishing as a canine suddenly becoming a biped. Johnson: “A woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.” It is a miracle for a woman to see beyond her hypergamous haze, and here you are trying to direct civilization.

The society that understands and cultivate nature into a garden — in consonance with her prerogatives — are the cultures that survive to learn from mistakes. Your program entails frolicking in the jungle without a thought of the requirements of cultivation — in rebellion against nature’s prerogatives — and so you ask us to be subject to a very different state of nature, where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

In other words, preach whatever fantasy you want to preach. But if your message doesn’t adequately reckon with the stringent requirements of the future, it will be reduced to silence in the space of two generations.

Could you please explain to me how exactly learning to be open, honest, how to not play games, how to understand and express your own desires is detrimental to civilized existence?

Glad to help. What you describe is a sexless, robotic bore, like something out of Brave New World. The sexes are made different for a reason. Vive la différence.

You are skipping along the surface, but you need to go deeper if you want to understand the phenomenon of game.

Right now, are you looking for a wife? A serious girlfriend? Someone to have children with? No! You are looking to fuck, enjoy, have fun with someone, and that is it.

If only it were as simple as you and some of the more thick-headed gamesters say. Some men are looking for a LTR and children, depending on what stage of the game they are at. And, yes, many others are looking for one-night-only performances or harem shuffling. But what you describe here is sex without complication, and that exists exclusively in fantasy. Only a fool or a woman would ignore the devil in the details and presume your “how not to play games” approach suffices as practical guidance through the wildly complex, ever shifting, sexual dynamic.

Women are constitutionally unable to cease playing games. It’s part of their charm. Women who are aggressive about their sexuality throw things off. A slut is a deliberate ruination of something naturally beautiful. She is mannish in her directness, an inversion of her being. Her behavior is nearly homosexual to a man, acting like a man to attract men. And many men will go in for this blunt exchange, just as dudes go to Fire Island chain parties, shake the bushes at rest stops to puff on peters, and turn to their fellow inmates when there are no ladies around. The physical act relieves the tension, and there is something admirably direct about the transaction, but no one would mistake it for the best of all worlds. It’s a world without feminine coyness and softness and playfulness. It’s a self-devouring male fuckall where things like goat.se happen. [Link is NSFS: Not Safe For Soul]

Yes, in the long term you may be looking for someone to marry (which is a stretch, as marriage and/or children are not for everyone) or “settle down” with, but that is probably the last thing from your mind as you go out and try to find somebody for the night.

We aren’t looking to “settle down.” There is no settling down anymore. There are only temporary cease-fires, precarious separate peaces, and an atmosphere of suspicion too intense for any individual to relax. The social compact has been broken. We were born into a cess pool, and we are trying to navigate it. You don’t help us by observing this harrowing sexual landscape and declaring it a utopia of honesty and openness. That compounds the deception.

You are a child of your era. You fall back on the tropes of the sexual revolution without the ability to see the generational consequences of presuming those principles reliable.

It’s not that you want her, really, you just don’t want some other dude touching her? What do you care?

You haven’t a clue. We are not so fully unsexed and denatured as you dream we should be. To ask the question “What do you care?” is essentially to be neutered. And you are proud of this epicene culture, where the male and female are no longer distinguishable. This is an achievement to you. But here, to the rest of us, it is an epic tragedy, a catastrophe that game is beginning to rectify one bang at a time. Each lapse in ideology, each reversion to nature that each pick-up signifies is a refutation of your stupid and destructive experiment.

When I fuck you I remind you you’re a woman, and all the beauty and limitation your sex entails. You want to relegate this most essential power differential as a mere kink in the bedroom. We are reapplying it to civilization at large, with the grudging cooperation of women just like you, ballcutting empowerment slutwalkers, who are built to forget all of their contrived and untenable scruples in the blaze of orgasm, whether that pleases their ideology or not.

Sorry, I wasn’t clear before, but I didn’t mean that men and women have always been broken and damaged specifically because they acted in the exactly the same way they do now. Women and men have always hurt each other, though, in different ways, and often through restricting their desires (which can be damaging in the long run). I don’t think that celebrating destructive behaviour is healthy – quite the opposite. But pretending that certain feelings and urges do not exist hasn’t worked so far, right? At some point they always rise to the surface, and then you have one gender being blatantly mistreated because the other overcompensates for past offenses. That happens to men and women both.

And I am not advocating indiscriminate sex with multiple unknown partners or abandoning all notions of societal norms and responsibilities. I was just saying that maybe the article had a point that expecting one person to fulfill all your needs puts unreasonable pressure on everyone involved. Having multiple partners does not mean you cannot form a connection with each one, just the extent or nature of this connection may be different. And once you find someone that you CAN raise a family with, you can be more aware of yourself and become a better parent, which IS better for the society as a whole.

I may live in the Western world now, and I do subscribe to a lot of liberal ways of thinking, but I am not oblivious to other realities. I grew up in Russia, I was married to a Muslim Egyptian, and I have a few fairly conservative friends. I actually don’t believe I am entitled to any better treatment simply for having been born a female, but neither do I think that I am somehow incapable of having rational thought without succumbing to delusional whining. I am not trying to direct civilization (because that would seem to be entirely too self-involved), and maybe this is where I went wrong in asking questions. Yes, the future of humanity as a whole is shaped by individual actions, and people have to consider the repercussions of what they do, but it is really that impossible to believe that there is a way to reconcile intelligent thinking with personal desires for everyone’s benefit?

Actually, if you think that “natural” impulses of men and women are to trick each other to fulfill their opposing goals (such as certain paternity and hypergamy), then trying to have an honest conversation should be pretty forward-thinking, no?

I am not saying that all women should be aggressive about their sexuality (though some may have that in them, and hopefully they can find men that are turned on by that). “Coyness and softness and playfulness” are not mutually exclusive with knowing what you want. I am not talking about drunk girls in bars throwing themselves at the first guy in line and then propositioning bathroom sex to another stranger. But if I meet someone that I have great chemistry with, and who seems to be into me, why do I have to be either ashamed of what I want or lie and pretend to be someone I am not?

“There is no settling down anymore. There are only temporary cease-fires, precarious separate peaces, and an atmosphere of suspicion too intense for any individual to relax.”

Yes, you are so painfully right. I must have expressed myself very wrong before if you felt that this is what I am referring to when I talk about lack of games and honesty. The constant state of mistrust that seems to define almost all interactions I see is suffocating. I will not tell half-truths and then adamantly declare that I am being open and honest – that is simply perpetuating the problem. But please tell me, are you satisfied with all of this “deception”? I guess, probably, at this point meeting someone who told you that they are not interested in lies would seem like just another line, which is a sad situation. I would much rather mean every word I say and take what I am told at face value.

Also, in no way do I think that the sexes are identical. That is akin to saying that everyone should be paid the same way. I lived through the collapse of communism in Soviet Union (though, admittedly, I was young, I still saw the aftermath), and I do not believe that assigning the same values to everyone is the way to make a functioning society. However, having the same access to the opportunities is essential for progress. So I do believe that women should be able to work, contribute to supporting the household and pull their weight in a relationship.

I do not dream of men being neutered. I want to have strong, masculine, honest, confident and self-assured men in the world. I want men who know their worth, who are open about who they are, who are driven to get what they want and won’t let someone else direct them. Who are not affected by other people’s perceptions of them. If anything, I think that such men would not waste their time on such a useless emotion as jealousy. There are much more valuable things to do in this life than to be concerned that someone you are casually sleeping with is also seeing other people.

Overall, I simply don’t buy into the idea that ALL people are wired a certain way. I think that sex and relationship preferences are like food – some people like all kinds of weird stuff, some like it spicy, some prefer meat and potatoes, some are vegetarians, and some just are not that into food. Doesn’t mean we have to eat everything in sight, but learning balance and discovering what you actually like and don’t like might make for consistently much more pleasurable dinners.

Your point is well taken. However you are failing to see that men do have a double standard and always will. Unconsciously, it is about paternity certainty for males and the proxy for that is disgust at the idea of touching or otherwise coming across another man’s seed down there and the proxy for that is fear of STDs which men seem to have more than women (the fear of).

Otherwise, yes, men do want women to behave like willing Bond girls with us individually. But we need to consciously or unconsciously feel we’re the one you unconsciously or consciously want to have a baby with.

Ok, I get that, but it seems so complicated! Because men complain incessantly about women having child fever in their 30s (specifically) and how all women are manipulative gold-digging whores who only want to find a provider and get pregnant from some other dude. Now you have a chance to have women who are not interested in your money or sperm, and want you for who YOU are (in bed, at least), and it’s not good enough because “but she doesn’t want my babies!”

I understand, if you find the girl you actually want to reproduce with, you want to make sure the child is yours, but I think that if from the beginning you have a relationship built on honesty and mutual respect, both of you should be fully capable of being exclusive at least for the time period to conceive a child. And afterwards, wouldn’t you rather have a partner that would not freak out and possibly even encourage you have a romp on the side whenever you feel like it? If, on the other hand, the entire interaction is built on games, hiding and avoiding, no wonder you can’t trust the paternity – you can’t trust anything coming from her. And, by the way, neither can she trust you.

Maybe I am just an idealist. But I can’t be the only one who would have something simple, uncomplicated and fun rather than constant drama. It seems like an enormous waste of time and effort.

Intercourse is to make children. It is pleasurable because apparently that is the evolutionary incentive people needed in the past to reproduce.

Now we can control reproduction with a little pill, a piece of plastic, or surgeon’s scalpel.

A stable committed marriage is the most just way to raise healthy, well-adjusted children.

You can’t have a stable committed marriage with a whore.

Men innately have conflicting desires to spread seed and be the leaders and protectors of their civilization. That is biology. You can not argue with reality.

Men can fulfill their biological imperative to spread their seed (even if it is into chemically sterile wombs) while at the same time ruefully, intellectually recognizing the unintended consequences of making a generation of women psychologically unfit for motherhood, marriage and child rearing.

Even if women are completely open and up front about what harlots they wish to be, it doesn’t mean men can’t morn over the loss of someone who could have been a nourishing, beautiful wife and mother, and what that portends for our country’s future.

Thank you, it is a fascinating and very interesting view of how the world works. Might not be for me, but it must be very empowering.

If we are talking about biology and the imperative to “spread the seed”, then men should have an impulse to impregnate one female and then right away move on to another, thus not participating in a “stable committed marriage”. But such a marriage, by your definition, is the basis of a healthy civilization. This is really unfair to men, because it puts unrealistic expectations on them as to which task they would inevitably fail by their behaviour. If you are good at getting women into bed, you are acing the biological imperative exam, yet failing miserably at your goal of building a stable society. Kind of a lot to take on, no?

If you think that this is a completely normal way to live for you, I can understand that. Then you cannot really be angry at women for lying their way to get a provider and then to get pregnant by the most successful gene donor that would ensure the survival of humanity – after all, this is the only role you are allowing for them. I guess it makes sense then how you separate men into those who gallivant from woman to woman and those who quietly stay at home and take care of children. But then neither one is a complete “man”, just two halves fulfilling different roles, right?

And if, by some chance, your definition of a whore was someone who may have a caring, trusting, committed relationship with one person yet have fulfilling sexual encounters with other people, then… why exactly wouldn’t you be able to have a good marriage with one of those? By the way, you would be able to be a whore, too. Cause this is what a lot of male infidelity comes down to, right? “Honey, with her it was only sex, I want you to be the one to carry my children!”

Sadly, you are just another hedonistic whore of the reality tv generation and nihilism/me me me BS.

What is feels good for a single person is not necessarily good for society. This is why basically all civilizations imposed severe restrictions on human sexuality. You and your friends come along and sure that the new morals you invented (feminism/individualism/sexual revolutiont/etc) can just replace millennia of cultural evolution. The ‘old’ ways made men give up their ‘variety’ impulse and women give up their hypergamy impulses (to an extent). No, they didn’t get every single desire satisfied, and that’s ok. Raising children in strong families is more important to society than having a gaggle.

(BTW, your precious feelings and just the ways of your genes to manipulate you to make children… biologically speaking, sex without children is insanity)

What I don’t understand is that if men inherently care about upholding a healthy society with a strong human race, then why aren’t they arranging a controlled polygynous culture where they ensure that ONLY the alpha males get to have children?

It seems to me that if men cared about survival of the fittest, they would have a cut-and-dry process of determining how much his genetic material is worth. Most men will be beta, so it works out that most men should devote their resources to raising the children of alpha men. In return for their cooperation, the betas will receive regularly scheduled (and protected) sex from the woman they are supporting. And that’s kinda what’s going on right now, only it’s seen as a huge injustice because of ego.

I’m seriously not trolling, I’m just genuinely curious about what the evo-psych abiding readers here would say to this. In terms of survival of the fittest, cuckoldry is completely reasonable.

[heartiste: so is rape, by your moral reasoning.]

Women should only be chastised for having children with betas and omegas, as this is a waste of their wombs.

I think lost in this theory is the unbelievable amount of energy, time and money it takes to juggle multiple women. I’ve done it and it is flat out exhausting. It straight up wears me out.

There is something nice and tranquil about having a girlfriend to fuck on demand. It’s where you find peace. I think the optimal setup is a steady hot young girlfriend who you cheat on occassionally with some random chicks you meet on work trips or at functions. But taking out multple women or spending time with multiple women is just down right exhausting. Having to listen to the bullshit that comes out of their mouth and having to act interested and the stupid crap they say, just gets old.

The optimal setup is a smoking hot girlfriend who you cheat on with younger tender ass when the oppurtunities arrive.

The first time I juggled three girls, your observation was true for me. It was a lot of work, I had to listen to a lot of BS, and there was some guilt in there, mostly due to the fact that this was pre-red pill for me.

Now, it’s not so much work. More confidence equals more willingness to tell my girls what I’m willing to put up with & what I’m not. I’m clear that in addition to maintaining a stimulating and rewarding social calendar, I also require my alone time, and time with my good friends.

At this point, maintaining two regular girls I see plus several other intermittent ones, and a few new prospects, is less work than my old LTR with a high-maintenance bitch back in the blue pill days.

Ironically I feel so much more confident and non-needy, I don’t feel a strong need to approach like a madman. I don’t force approaches, things just happen naturally, and even though I’m quite satisfied where I am, there is no shortage of new prospects, either.

In short, maintaining a harem is “too much work” only if you believe it is, and allow it to become so. Remember you’re the captain of the ship, you get to decide how to roll.

Agreed. At one point last year I had a girl for every day of the week, and I felt like I was running myself ragged trying to keep up with all of them. Eventually, though, I internalized the idea that they were the ones who had to work to keep my attention, not the other way around, and I had to stop making women priority #1 in my life and take care of myself first, and things got a lot easier for me.

There is a been-there-done-that quality that eventually makes pick-up subject to the law of diminishing returns. But young men have to play the string out all the way to the end before they trust their elders that there are greater pursuits than a diversity of endless pussy; especially since, you know, that pursuit is impossible to achieve. Some guys do the math and allow themselves to be satisfied (a priori), some guys have to encounter the inescapable banality themselves before they believe it (a posteriori).

Right now at the all-you-can-eat pussy buffet, it’s hard to make the a priori case. So we stand by as they overindulge, until they become familiar with the deleteriousness of overindulgence. It’s like making your kid smoke a whole pack of cigarettes in a row till he gets sick.

To me it is a woman publicly stating, albeit underneath camouflage, that women should pursue the “Alpha Sux, Beta Bux” strategy a la GBFM.

But since we all know that women automatically do that, this book is just ego cooing Divine Secrets of the Yenta Sisterhood, or women too manjawed and digit ratioed to understand how their own sex works so they have to therapeutically flagellate over Starbucks mochas at the monthly book club.

You’ve concocted The Single Longest Sentence Ever on CH nee CR.
So, as a new devotee of gbfm’s wisdom, that singular achievement (above) gives you special capabilities and qualifications to interpret – for us – your thoughts on what that gbfm gospel means.

Who has time to date three women?? I was doing that a few months ago, but had to just choose one because I didn’t have time. Now I still only see her on weekends (or a mid-week booty call when our weekends are full).

The Byzantine Empress Theodora is supposed to have been a prostitute who called herself the Wolf Girl—doggy style maybe. Apparently she was hot enough to keep the Emperor in hand and buck up his courage during the Nike riots and prevent the collapse of the Empire.

I like the idea of a Mr&MrsEasyJet harem, I call it the Import Model. Go around Europe hitting on local girls and position 4 or 5 of them so that you can fly them in on a rotating basis a week at a time each. With budget airlines so cheap these days I’m spending less than £100 per week and getting all my meals cooked too.